AMALGAMATED GOD. The Adventist understanding of the Godhead has undergone many changes. The organizers and influential individuals within the early Advent movement were primarily Arians and other anti-Trinitarians. Co-founder James White, the husband of their messenger of God, Ellen G. White, was a minister from the Christian Connexion which denied the deity of Jesus. Upon founding the Seventh-day Adventist church, these anti-Trinitarians were not ready to part with the doctrines they had so fervently defined and defended. While todays Adventist scholars acknowledge the anti-Trinitarianism of the organizations founders, they assert Adventism now teaches the Trinity. Nevertheless, they have never renounced nor repented of their founding error or corrected its lingering effects. An important book came off the Adventist presses in 2002, titled The Trinity. From about 1846 to 1888 the majority of Adventists rejected the concept of the Trinity—at least as they understood it. All the leading writers were anti-Trinitarian, although we find scattered references to members who held Trinitarian views.... Ambrose C. Spicer ... grew so offended at the anti-Trinitarian atmosphere in Battle Creek that he ceased preaching.10 The Adventist church has never repented of its Arian/anti-Trinitarian position, nor has it dealt with the resulting issues that allow current members to maintain membership while being openly anti-Trinitarian. It is a well-documented fact that anti-Trinitarianism is on the increase within Adventism. George Knight, retired professor of church history at Andrews University, the Adventist seminary, has made this fact very clear in the annotated edition of Questions On Doctrine published in 2003. He states: ... the denomination in the closing years of the twentieth century and the opening years of the twenty-first has witnessed a resurgence of anti-Trinitarianism and semi-Arianism on the basis that the earliest founders of the denomination held those views.11 The Adventist church is much more articulate about its day of worship than about the nature of the God to be worshiped. They leave little room for error regarding when the seventh-day Sabbath begins and ends and what must be done in preparation for that day. The understanding of the nature of Christ within Adventism, however, is so diverse that one Adventist theologian, Eric Claude Webster, was able to write Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology, showing at least four major streams of thought within Adventism ranging from His being a deified human who showed us how to live, to His being one who was truly God-with-us.12 Jack Blanco incorporates the continuing anti-Trinitarian influence within Adventism into The Clear Word. Below we compare ten passages from TCW with an accepted modern translation and identify the problems in The Clear Word. (TCW refers to the current version of The Clear Word, copyright 2003, that is currently sold in Adventist Book Centers. ESV refers to the English Standard Version used throughout this article. The Clear Word Bible, original edition, is used as necessary.) Genesis 1:26a, 27 ESV: Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. TCW: But this was not the end of His work for that day. Next He said to His Son, Now let us make beings who look like us and can reflect our thinking and our personality. Lets give them the responsibility of ruling over and caring for the fish, the birds and the animals which we created. So they created two human beings, a male and a female, equal but with different functions, to reflect the unity of the Godhead. Problems: The image of God is a physical characteristic in TCW. John 4:24, however, states that God is spirit, not a physical body. Further, the Godhead in TCW consists of two united beings, not one Being expressed in three Persons as in accepted translations. Since Blanco admits the Son as being present in creation, why does he not also present the Holy Spirit? The oneness of Adam and Eve was never a way to understand the oneness of the Godhead. Paul uses marriage as a symbol of Christ and his church. The Godhead presented in this passage of TCW is a bi-unity, not a tri-unity. John 1:1 ESV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. TCW: From the beginning, the Word of God was there. The Word stood by the side of God, and the Word was fully God. The Clear Word Bible, original edition, reads, In the beginning, going further back in time than can be imagined, the Word of God was there. The Word stood by the side of God, and the Word was fully God. Problems: Further back in time than can be imagined is not equivalent to In the beginning. Moreover, From the beginning is not equivalent to In the beginning. From connotes something continuing since the beginning. In connotes a presence not only at the beginning but also before and after. Standing by the side of and being with carry different theological meanings. One has to do with physical space, the other with identity or being. John 8:58 ESV: Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. TCW: Jesus answered, Because I existed before Abraham was born. Problems: Jesus is quoting the name of God from Exodus 3:14. In the Septuagint, the Greek reads , which literally translates to I AM. Jesus was not claiming to pre-exist Abraham. He was claiming the title of Almighty God. John 10:30 ESV: I and the Father are one. TCW: You see, my Father and I are so close, were one. Problems: Jesus statement has nothing to do with closeness, but with exactness. It has to do with identity of being. TCW implies they are separate entities. The biblical text says they are one. John 14:8, 11a ESV: Philip said to him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. TCW: Philip spoke up, Lord, give us just one glimpse of the Father before you go and well be satisfied. Believe me when I tell you that the Father would do everything I have done if He were here. Problems: Jesus is not speaking about what the Father would do if he were there. He is making a statement of fact that the Father is literally in him. The Father is present in Jesus. John 14:10 ESV: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. TCW: You must believe me when I tell you that I am the Father in action and that the Father is living out His life in me. All the things Ive taught you were not just my own, but the Fathers. Its the Father living in me whos doing all this. Problems: For Jesus to state that he is the Father in action is (or is bordering on) modalism. The real Jesus does not confuse the persons of the Father and Son. Moreover, Jesus is not confusing the persons of the Father and Son, as I am the Father in action would suggest. He literally means He and the Father are separate persons but are in each other. John 20:28 ESV: Thomas answered him, My Lord and my God! TCW: Thomas stood there speechless. Then fell to his knees and said, Lord, youre alive! They were right! I believe! You are my Lord and my God. Thomas words in the original The Clear Word Bible read, Lord, youre alive! They were right! I believe! You are the Son of God. Problems: Scripture does not indicate that Thomas was speechless. His declaration is profound. The phrase Son of God as used in The Clear Word Bible is not equivalent to the Christian understanding of Lord and God. There is an old argument used by Jehovahs Witnesses, (not used much anymore) that Thomas was startled and cried out something similar to the modern, Oh my Lord, oh my God! In TCW Thomas seems to be startled, expressing emotion rather than making a declaration of truth revealed by God (compare with Matthew 16:16-17.) Colossians 1:19 ESV: For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. TCW, The Clear Word Bible, original edition: With pleasure the Father acknowledged Him as fully God, in spite of His human nature. More recently, this has been changed to: The Father was pleased to acknowledge the fullness of God in Him. Problems: This paraphrase is problematic, particularly if His human nature detracted from His deity. The actual Scripture does not allow a question about Jesus human nature. The Adventist teaching about the sinful nature of the human Jesus is a direct result of the teaching of Ellen White. Christs humanity was absolutely perfect. The Clear Word Bible, original edition, paraphrase, has never been recalled as being incorrect. Many still have and use this version for personal study in the Adventist church. Moreover, TCW suggests that the Father was looking on and acknowledging deity in Jesus. The actual Scripture states that the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Jesus, not merely for part of God to acknowledge deity in Jesus. The actual Scripture here is reminiscent of God filling the temple in the Old Testament. Jesus the man was also all that God is. Jude 9 ESV: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke you. TCW: In contrast to these ungodly men is the Lord Jesus, also called Michael the Archangel, for He is over the entire angelic host. When He was challenged by Satan about His intentions to resurrect Moses, He didnt come at Satan with a blistering attack, nor did He condemn him with mockery. He simply said, God rebuke you for claiming Moses body. Problems: Scripture never refers to Jesus as an archangel. Further, nowhere in Scripture is there a reference to Moses body being resurrected. This comes directly from the pen of Ellen White. The Jehovahs Witnesses use this same argument to deny the deity of Jesus. If it were Jesus, why did he not rebuke the devil in the same fashion he did when he walked the earth? (See Mt. 17:18; Lk. 4:25, 9:42) Revelation 1:16b ESV: ... from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword ... TCW: Each time He spoke, a beam of light like a two-edged sword came out of His mouth. Problems: Adding extra information can be misleading. Hebrews 4:12 compares the word of God to a two-edged sword that judges people. Isaiah 49:2 describes the mouth of the Messianic servant of the Lord as a sword. Ephesians 6:9 identifies the sword of the Spirit as the word of God. The imagery of Revelation 1:16 connotes judgment, not beams of light. Mysterious, But Not Difficult In Adventism, numerous concepts of God are equally acceptable, existing simultaneously as shown in the pages of The Clear Word. One can be an Arian, semi-Arian, modalist, anti-Trinitarian, even a Trinitarian and find support for ones position throughout the writings of Adventism, including TCW. The Adventist God is truly an amalgamation. What God has revealed about Himself in the Bible is neither tricky nor difficult. By adding words and using human logic we can trick ourselves, but the glimpse of God that the Bible provides can be stated simply. There is one Creator God. This one God has given us the Bible. In the Bible He reveals Himself to us as Father, Son and Spirit. These are not three beings, but one Being. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. The three persons, Father, Son and Spirit, are not confused (i.e., the Father is not the Son or Spirit, the Son is not the Father or Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father or Son.) Analogies are rarely helpful, often generating as many questions as they attempt to answer. The following drawing , however, may help.
Posted on: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:37:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015